Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire CC [2000] Q.B. 51

D owned a strip of land about 300 yards long alongside a motorway. From October 1991, the strip was occupied by travellers in ‘considerable numbers’ who lived in caravans. In June 1994, the travellers were evicted by order of the court. D applied for this order but struggled to enforce it in good time. C are the tenant farmers of the land adjacent to the motorway. C complained that the travellers caused a considerable nuisance on their land. C brought proceedings against D in August 1993 claiming an injunction and damages for the nuisance. D argued successfully for the judge to strike out C’s application based on the Hussain v Lancaster CC ruling. The Hussain case held that the occupier of land is not liable for nuisance caused by third parties on their land if they did not authorise the nuisance.

Was a nuisance claim arguable where travellers allegedly used council-controlled land as a base for repeated wrongdoing affecting neighbouring farms?

The Court of Appeal allowed the claim to proceed. The allegations were capable of supporting responsibility in nuisance because the council's land was said to be the base from which repeated interference with neighbouring farms was organised. This was distinguishable from a complaint about misconduct having no sufficient connection with the defendant's use or occupation of land. The council's knowledge, control and opportunity to take reasonable steps were material. The decision concerned whether the pleaded claim should be struck out; it did not establish that every allegation was proved or that damages were finally due. Those matters required determination on the evidence.

An occupier may face nuisance liability where third parties use its land as a base for interference with neighbouring land and the occupier knows of the problem but fails to take reasonable steps within its control. Lippiatt established an arguable claim, not automatic responsibility for all third-party misconduct.

Lippiatt demonstrates why the connection between land and wrongdoing matters in private nuisance. It does not impose general vicarious liability on a landowner for everyone present there. The allegations concerned repeated interference based on a particular site and the council's response to known events. For examination purposes, separate whether a claim is legally arguable from whether liability has been proved. The procedural posture is especially important when comparing the case with decisions dismissing claims about personal harassment or unrelated criminal activity.